Not all nuclear waste is the same. It shouldn’t be treated that way

Hanford prepares to treat radioactive waste at the vitrification plant

The Department of Energy is preparing to start turning some of the 56 million gallons of radioactive waste held in underground tanks into a stable glass form at the Hanford vitrification plant.

By

Up Next

The Department of Energy is preparing to start turning some of the 56 million gallons of radioactive waste held in underground tanks into a stable glass form at the Hanford vitrification plant.

By

Let’s call it what it really is.

If much of the nuclear waste at the Hanford nuclear reservation truly is low-level, then continuing to name it high-level and treating it like it’s highly radioactive and highly dangerous makes no sense.

The Department of Energy wants to change the current labeling system so it will have more flexibility in disposing of the less harmful waste. However, critics who don’t trust DOE’s motives see the effort as a way for the agency to cut corners on clean-up.

We join with other Tri-City leaders, scientists and engineers close to the issue who say nuclear waste should be defined by its characteristics and risk, and not its origin.

Sign Up and Save

The U.S. is the only country in the world that determines nuclear waste classifications based on where that waste was generated — from reprocessing irradiated reactor fuel — rather than its present properties.

That standard was set decades ago by the Atomic Energy Commission, but now scientists say various processes and a radioactive decay life or two have altered the composition of some of the “high-level” waste so it isn’t as hot anymore.

Changing the classification is significant because high-level waste must be disposed of carefully, deep underground in a geologic repository that has yet to open.

But low-level waste can be encased in concrete-like grout and sent to a commercial repository in Texas. It is a much quicker process, and the more waste we can treat and ship out of our region, the better.

In addition, it’s estimated that the reclassification plan could save DOE $40 billion, which could then be directed to higher-risk projects at Hanford and other nuclear sites.

Cleanup funds won’t last forever

Representatives from the Tri-City Development Council, the Hanford Communities organization, including it’s chairman Richland Mayor Bob Thompson, met with the Tri-City Herald Editorial Board about their concerns.

The concern is that DOE officials might take advantage of this reclassification process and, as Gov. Jay Inslee said, “… grant themselves the unilateral authority to leave high-level radioactive waste in the ground at Hanford.”

We wouldn’t want that either, and we understand Inslee’s doubts.

DOE move undermines trust

It didn’t help that DOE decided in May — without public review or comment — to restrict the Nuclear Facilities Safety Board’s access to nuclear sites and information. Such a move completely undermines the trust needed to garner support for its waste reclassification efforts.

So DOE officials will have to be willing to allow for some outside oversight of its plan because we doubt reclassification will happen without it

They also will have to do a better job of making their case — particularly to regional lawmakers — if common sense is to stand a chance.

All parties should agree, at the very least, that low-level waste should not be treated like high-level waste just because that’s how the language was set up originally. If it is low-level, then it should be labeled low-level and disposed of quickly and safely.

Read Next

Organizers of Pasco’s syringe exchange program, Blue Mountain Heart to Heart, need a new home for the needle program after Franklin County commissioners evicted them, a decision that hurts drug addicts.